Fellini - Satyricon

...and because I had read "Satyricon" before I saw it I probably was less baffled by the movie than most people. Very little survives of the content of original story, a few longish bits and lots tiny fragments, sometimes as short as a sentence or a word. All disconnected from each... ...ning and end of Petronius' novel are missing, what we have left suddenly starts in the middle without any background or prelude. And each of the surviving bits is the same way, giving few, if any hints, of how our heroes got there from their last adventure, or how their current one will be resolved. Or even what their current crisis is. We can onl... ...bother making a film of from such a fragmentary source? Because Petronius is wickedly funny and has a gifted insight into human... ...participant in the decadence and depravity, yet judging and commenting on it at the... ...2000 years been read and translated... ...amorallity, but social standards always... ...Fellini captures the spirit not only of Imperial Rome but of... ...doesn't make sense, so like you do in the original, you have to extrapolate based on... ...satiric, sardonic, and visually stunning... ...enjoy...

"Satyricon" studies ancient Rome of the first century, and is virtually plot less. The images drive the movie, not the story and characters, and the movie is essentially a montage of unrelated scenes. Cinematography and art direction are wonderful and the film is truly the feast for eyes. Its beauty comes from El Fayum portraits, wall paintings (frescos) and mosaics from Rome and Pompeii. The problem with Satyricon is that IMO Fellini himself did not like it very much. He seems to be a remote observer in that gorgeous but empty, soulless, decadence world of Nero's Rome. Two main characters that connect unrelated events are so insignificant, dull, and futile that they only take a screen time from the magnificent images which are the main attractions of "Satyricon". Even those images cannot safe Satyricon from being just a glorious illustration to an ancient book.

"Satyricon" feels empty, loud, and shallow. I rather read Petronius's book or watch the immortal, impressive, and full of character El Fayum portraits.

I prefer more " Fellini's Roma" – as beautiful as "Satyricon", it is much more enjoyable, has a subtle message and a lot of heart and magnificent Eternal City is deservingly the only main character of Maestro Fellini's very personal film.

As far as plots go, movies differ. Some have obvious plots that have been done repeatedly in the history of film/literature culture. You know how the thing is going to end in the first five min. Others have plots that are there, but one has to watch the movie five times before understanding it all. Some do not have plots and everyone knows it, in which case it better have something else that is damn well done! Then comes along a movie, teetering on the thin line of questionable success where one can not tell whether there is a plot or not. If, while watching Satyricon you find yourself wandering whether it is going to wrap up finally into an understandable conclusion after which you can satisfactorily murmur `ahh yes, now I got it'. Well, in the end there is no such luck, sorry lads and lasses. Of the plot the one thing I could gather is that it is the journey of the main character who is searching for something, or some one? Very hard to figure out. It starts out as a conflict between one Greek lad and another who both have unbegotton lust of a younger lad then themselves. The lad ends up choosing one over the other, or something of that strange sort. The other goes off, into something like a whorehouse, or something. The whole thing is bathed in color of unnatural hue. But, I degrees., To get back to the supposed half invisible story line, the supposed main character goes off on a journey of many naked breasted strange looking ladies. The secondary characters all come in and disappear throughout the story. One really has to view this more as a surreal world with little scenes and parts that are not really connected by any great spine, because otherwise one is to be lost for sure. Over all it has the flow of an acid trip with some really pretty boys strange kings (or was there just one) and strange looking women! There is no doubt that there are many subtle points to be made, but it may not at first be clear what they are. Ultimately, if there is any sort of plot it probably revolves around a young man trying to find himself (or his sexuality) though different occurrences.

I've voted 8 out of 10 for Fellini Satyricon, but I can imagine that a few people may find that to be an overly indulgent grade. Actually, I know that a few people will feel that way -- I've shown it to several friends, and they all agree it looks beautiful and manages to amuse on numerous occasions. But they don't get much more out of it. That's too bad for them. Aaaw yeah.

As Vincent Canby said in his review, from 1970 in the New York Times, 'Fellini Satyricon is its own justification'. This movie exists purely to engage on an aesthetic level. The surrealism, the carnival-of-life atmosphere, the monumental pageantry, the visual juxtaposition of beauty and ugliness, and the black humour are all the film possesses and are all it requires. I believe that Fellini's intention with this film was simply to entertain. And he was a master entertainer, no doubt.

Don't expect much in the way of characterisation, of complex plot developments, or of nifty moral expression. This is a film that looks and sounds beautiful, and it manages to hold your interest (or mine anyway, I can't speak for everyone) for two brief hours by doing just that. Fellini = Godlike genius.

Fellini engages us through a tapestry of decadence during the Roman Empire with such stunning juxtapositions of exceptional images from a collapsing society that one cannot help but be reminded of our own times and its disconcert morality…

The film is freely adapted from Petronius' book, which is the exploits of two young Romans, Ascilto and Encolpio, as they venture throughout the empire, indulging in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships… In the course of this proliferation of sensuality, Ascilto becomes impotent and madly goes for a cure which ends in tragedy for Encolpio…

The movie's treatment of the sexual decadence is remarkably powerful without being explicit… In fact, in light of the mental images it presents, it actually puts on view very little on screen… But there is a great quantity of mysterious whores, hedonists, gluttons, and gross indulgence in carnal pleasure… In the midst of this chaos, however, there is a beautifully light reprieve as the young Romans come across a forsaken villa... A very charming slave girl has remained behind, and she playfully troubles the two men into an erotic game…

Apart from that, the sex is portrayed as bizarre, tempting, suggestive of hidden secrets, violating the rules of morality, and going beyond the limit